Special Officer And Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies and Another vs Workmen Of Vanivilas Sugar Factory and others

1. An order was made on November 7, 1986 by the Government of Karnataka under Section 25-K(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act declaring the Establishment of the appellants of a seasonal character.

2. The Government found that from the year 1971-73 when the Sugar Factory was started till the year 1986 when the order was passed, the appellant's Establishment recorded that crushing of sugarcane was ranging from 43 days to 230 days only; that in most years the number of days crushed ranged from 140 days to 160 days; that these variations occurred on account of non-availability of sufficient sugarcane in the factory; that these facts established that the industry is seasonal. When this order was challenged before the High Court it was pointed out that the Government itself had adopted certain standards in matters of this nature. In regard to two Establishments namely Gauri Bidanur Sugar Factory and Tunghabhadra Sugar Works (P) Ltd. it was noticed that the difficulty in procurement of sugarcane would not be a relevant factor in determining whether the Establishment is of seasonal character or not; that working of a Sugarcane Factory cannot be equated with crushing of sugarcane alone and various other activities such as maintenance, marketing, accounting and extension work for sugarcane cultivation, etc. should be taken note of in addition to the fact of the number of permanent employees in the establishment. On that basis the Government reached the conclusion that though crushing occupation was seasonal, the industrial Establishment was not seasonal. However, in the case of the appellants the reasons referred in other cases as irrelevant were taken note of without noticing that there were 338 out of 600 employees of permanent character. The only reason set out is that the crushing activity had been drastically reduced. In that background the High Court has rightly adopted the very standards set out by the Government itself as touchstone to come to the conclusion that different standards are adopted with regard to different sugar factories and what was adopted as standard if applied to the appellant the impugned order could not have been passed by the Government. The High Court allowed the writ petition and that order was upheld by the Division Bench. We do not see any good reason to interfere with the order made by the High Court. The appeals are therefore dismissed.